DOCSLIB.ORG

Strategic Uses of Reexamination in Litigation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strategic Uses of Reexamination in Litigation STRATEGIC USES OF REEXAMINATION IN LITIGATION Donna Meuth Contested Matters Committee September 23, 2009 Why reexamination? Reexamination should be part of your patent strategy when: You learn of an important patent You receive a threatening letter Litigation is filed You are in a larger business dispute You own the patent WilmerHale 1 What is reexamination? A reexamination is a procedure in which the Patent Office examines the patentability of an issued patent WilmerHale 2 Reexamination – Two Kinds Ex parte – Patent owner or third party can file a request for reexamination – Third party can remain anonymous – Generally, third party has no further participation after the request – Patent owner can interview Examiner – Can be appealed by patent owner to the BPAI – Less expensive WilmerHale 3 Reexamination – Two Kinds (cont.) Inter partes – Only applies to patents from patent applications filed on or after November 29 , 1999 – Filed only by third party and must be identified – Third party participates in reexamination process – No interviews with the Examiner – Can be appealed to the BPAI or Federal Circuit by patent owner or third party • Third party can participate in appeal filed by owner WilmerHale 4 Reexamination – Estoppel Inter partes is not widely used because of its broad estoppel – Requestor estopped from raising issues that were raised or “could have been raised” in subsequent proceedings, including litigation – Requestor not estopped from asserting invalidity “based upon newly discovered prior art unavailable to the third- party requestor . at the time of the . reexamination proceedings” WilmerHale 5 Reexamination – Two stage process Patent office determines whether there is a “substantial new question of patentability” (SNQP) Examination of claims – Challenges must be based upon patents and printed publications – No other bases accepted: public use, on sale, earlier invention, etc. WilmerHale 6 Reexamination – Timing Can be filed any time during the patent term PTO determines if SNQP exists, usually within 2-3 months If reexamination process starts after or extends beyond pppatent expiration, claims cannot be amended Ex parte certificate issues in about 25 months Inter partes certificate issues in about 34 months WilmerHale 7 Reexamination – Examination Generally, similar to regular prosecution, except: – 101 and 112 rejections only to new claims and amendments – No automatic extensions – Conducted with “special dispatch” Must appeal unfavorable decisions – no continuations WilmerHale 8 Results of Reexamination Certificate that each claim in reexamination is: – Confirmed (without amendment) – Allowe d (w it h amen dment ) – Cancelled Intervening rights for defendant – For claims that are added or amended in reexamination, they apply only after certificate is issued WilmerHale 9 STATISTICS WilmerHale 10 Inter Partes Data 671 total requests since start of inter partes reexamination on 11/29/99 The trend is up: – 2002: 4 – 2005: 59 – 2008: 168 – 2009: 195 ((gthrough June) 446 (66%) known to be in litigation source: www.uspto.gov, “Inter partes Reexamination Filing Data” 6/30/09 WilmerHale 11 Inter Partes Data (cont.) Re-exam granted: 95% Length of pendency: average: 36.1 months median: 33.0 months 95% of re-exams = claims cancelled or changed 5%: all claims confirmed 60%: all claims cancelled or disclaimed 35%: claims change – 77 (of the 671) have an issued re-exam certificate WilmerHale 12 Ex Parte Data 10066 total requests since 1981 The trend is up: – 1988: 268 – 1998: 350 – 2008: 680 – 2009: 481 (through June) 3079 (31%) known to be in litigation source: www.uspto.gov, “Ex parte Reexamination Filing Data” 6/30/09 WilmerHale 13 Ex Parte Data (cont.) All Ex Parte Re-exams Re-exam granted: 92% Length of pendency: – average: 25.1 months – mean: 19. 5 months 75% of re-exams = claims cancelled or changed – 25%: all claims confirmed – 11%: all claims cancelled or disclaimed – 64%: claims change WilmerHale 14 REEXAMINATION AND LITIGATION BPLA Contested Matters Committee Susan G. L. Glovsky September 23, 2009 Types of Reexamination • RititdbReexamination requested by patentee – Before litigation is pending – During litigation • Reexamination by third party – Ex parte • Identifying real party in interest • Multiple requests – Inter partes Requests by Patentee • Can pa ten tee s tay it s own liti ga tion ? • Reasons for patentee to request reexamination? • Reasons not to request reexamination? • Handling of patentee request for maximum benefit in ensuing litigation? Third Party Requests • TttTo reexam or not to reexam • Negatives – Likelihood patent will emerge from reexamination with claims intact, and perhaps not even amended – Gives the Patent Office seal of approvalthttl on the patent – Provides the patentee the opportunity to i mprove its pa tent positi on Reexam Positives • Cou ldbld be a ttltotal w in w ith no pa ten tlftt left • Forces patentee to fight on multiple fronts • With a stay – Delays and could eliminate enforcement – Delay could simply result in change in circumstances advantageous to accused infringer – Permits accused infringer without resources for a court fight a forum for invalidity defense Ex parte or Inter partes • Once ex parte itdiis requested, in general the cost is over • Inter partes is more costly, but requestor continues to participate, which can result in greater likelihood of success • BUT estoppel applies in inter partes but not ex parte reexamination What About Staying Litigation? • Shou ld a mo tion for a s tay be gran te d? – Pro: The Patent Office is better able to determine issues involving patentability – Con: If (when) the patent emerges from reexamination, the Court will address some of the same issues that were considered in the reexamination, along with infringement and damages issues with evidence that has gotten old and stale Case Experiences • DlDelay succee ds in ac hiihieving a settlement – Circumstances change – Companies or divisions get acquired • Cases that were not stayed RIM • Dismissal of case without prejudice to refiling • Denial because too late in Court action Case Experiences • EiExperiences w ithtdith stayed cases proceeding after reexamination is over? Susan Glovsky [email protected] 978-341-0036 September 23, 2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Litigation and Reexamination Mic hae l R. Mc Gur k BPLA Contested Matters Committee Sepp,tember 23, 2009 Disclaimer • These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational purposes to contribute to the understanding of American intellectual property law. These materials reflect only the personal views of the author and are not individualized legal advice. It is understood that each case is fact-specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, the author and FINNEGAN cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with the author or FINNEGAN. While every attempt was made to insure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed. 22 Validity Upheld But “Dubious” Wait for USPTO Reexam to Invalidate? • Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc., --F.3d– (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2009) – Fresenius filed DJ of noninfringement and invalidity – Jury: claims invalid as obvious. – DC: JMOL that jury verdict was not supported by substantial evidence -> claims valid. – FC: Reversed the district court’s grant of JMOL. Remaining claims in pending reexam. 33 Validity Upheld But “Dubious” Wait for USPTO Reexam to Invalidate? • Fresenius (con’t) – DYK, Circuit Judge, concurring • Majority opinion should not “foreclose the district court in its discretion from staying further proceedings pending the outcome of the reexamination.” • “While Fresenius did not establish the invalidity of claims 26–31 … in the district court ppgroceeding, those claims on their face are of dubious validity in light of our holding that claims 1–3 and 13–16 … and claim 11 are invalid. It is entirely possible that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will finally conclude that claims 26–31 of the ’434 patent are also invalid.” 44 Validity Upheld But “Dubious” Wait for USPTO Reexam to Invalidate? • Fresenius (con’t) – Judge Newman, dissenting • A stay would be: “[inappropriate] at this stage in this protracted litigation, after full trial and decision in the district court, after full appeal and ruling of the appellate court and with only a modified remedy remaining on remand. A stay of finality, after the issues of validity and infringement have been litigated and decided by the district court and appealed to the Federal Circuit, is a distortion of the role of reexamination.” • “I remain a strong supporter of the principle of reexamination. It can be a useful and powerful tool for the benefit of both patentees and those interested in restricting or eliminating adversely held patents. However, if routinely available to delay the judicial resolution of disputes, the procedure is subject to inequity, if not manipulation and abuse, through the delays that are inherent in PTO activity.” 55 Validity Upheld But “Dubious” Wait for USPTO Reexam to Invalidate? • Fresenius (con’t) – Judge Newman, dissenting
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MPEP Identifying and Evaluating Each Claim Limitation
    Chapter 2100 Patentability 2101 [Reserved] 2121.03 Plant Genetics Ð What Constitutes -2102 Enabling Prior Art 2103 Patent Examination Process 2121.04 Apparatus and Articles Ð What 2104 Patentable Subject Matter Constitutes Enabling Prior Art 2105 Patentable Subject Matter Ð Living 2122 Discussion of Utility in the Prior Art Subject Matter 2123 Rejection Over Prior Art's Broad 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Disclosure Instead of Preferred 2106.01 [Reserved] Embodiments 2107 Guidelines for Examination of 2124 Exception to the Rule That the Critical Applications for Compliance with the Reference Date Must Precede the Filing Utility Requirement Date 2107.01 General Principles Governing Utility 2124.01 Tax Strategies Deemed Within the Rejections Prior Art 2107.02 Procedural Considerations Related to 2125 Drawings as Prior Art Rejections for Lack of Utility 2126 Availability of a Document as a 2107.03 Special Considerations for Asserted ªPatentº for Purposes of Rejection Therapeutic or Pharmacological Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or Pre-AIA 35 Utilities U.S.C. 102(a), (b), and (d) 2108 [Reserved] 2126.01 Date of Availability of a Patent as a -2110 Reference 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest 2126.02 Scope of Reference's Disclosure Reasonable Interpretation Which Can Be Used to Reject Claims 2111.01 Plain Meaning When the Reference Is a ªPatentº but 2111.02 Effect of Preamble Not a ªPublicationº 2111.03 Transitional Phrases 2127 Domestic and Foreign Patent 2111.04 ªAdapted to,º ªAdapted for,º Applications as Prior Art ªWherein,º and ªWherebyº Clauses 2128 ªPrinted Publicationsº as Prior Art 2111.05 Functional and Nonfunctional 2128.01 Level of Public Accessibility Descriptive Material Required 2112 Requirements of Rejection Based on 2128.02 Date Publication Is Available as a Inherency; Burden of Proof Reference 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus 2129 Admissions as Prior Art Claims 2130 [Reserved] 2112.02 Process Claims 2131 Anticipation Ð Application of 35 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Patents and the Public Domain: Improving Patent Quality Upon Reexamination
    Patents and the Public Domain: Improving Patent Quality Upon Reexamination Prepared by Policy Intern Raeanne Young [email protected] May 2008 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION eff.org Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................3 PATENTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN .....................................................................................................4 The Problem With Patent Quality ..................................................................................................4 Policy Rationale: Encouraging Innovation .......................................................................................4 PATENT REEXAMINATION ...................................................................................................................6 Ex parte and Inter partes .............................................................................................................6 OVERALL REEXAMINATION TRENDS ......................................................................................................8 Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data: July , 98 - December 3, 2007 ...............................................8 Inter Partes Reexamination Filing Data: November 29, 999 - December 3, 2007 .............................0 Comparison of Ex Parte and Inter Partes ......................................................................................0 PROMOTING FAIRNESS IN THE PATENT SYSTEM THROUGH REEXAMINATION .............................................2
    [Show full text]
  • The “Article of Manufacture” Today
    Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 31, Number 2 Spring 2018 THE “ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE” TODAY Sarah Burstein* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 782 II. BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 785 A. Design Patentable Subject Matter ............................................ 785 B. Design Patent Claiming & Infringement ................................. 786 C. Remedies for Design Patent Infringement ............................... 788 III. WHAT IS THE “ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE” IN § 289?.............. 789 A. The Apple/Nordock Rule .......................................................... 791 B. The Supreme Court Weighs In ................................................. 791 IV. WHY COURTS SHOULD NOT ADOPT THE GOVERNMENT’S APPROACH .................................................................................... 793 A. The Test .................................................................................... 794 1. The Underlying Premise ........................................................ 795 2. The Factors ............................................................................ 797 B. The Nature of the Inquiry ......................................................... 802 1. A Case-by-Case Inquiry? ...................................................... 802 2. Is it a Question of Fact or Law? ............................................ 807 C. The Burden of Proof................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Legal Technology Risk Management
    THIRD CIRCUIT USES PROCEDURAL GROUNDS i JOURNAL OF LEGAL TECHNOLOGY RISK MANAGEMENT 1. THIRD CIRCUIT USES PROCEDURAL GROUNDS TO REJECT FCC’S WEAKENING OF MEDIA CROSS-OWNERSHIP RULES FOR A SECOND TIME IN PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT V. FCC 2. WHEN PARALLEL TRACKS CROSS: APPLICATION OF THE NEW INSIDER TRADING REGULATIONS UNDER DODD-FRANK DERAILS 3. ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY AND THE CONSTITUTION: INACCESSIBLE JUSTICE 4. RENEWING THE BAYH-DOLE ACT AS A DEFAULT RULE IN THE WAKE OF STANFORD V. ROCHE Volume 6 | Summer 2012 | Issue 1 (c) 2006-2012 Journal of Legal Technology Risk Management. All Rights Reserved. ISSN 1932-5584 (Print) | ISSN 1932-5592 (Online) | ISSN 1932-5606 (CD-ROM) www.ltrm.org II J. OF LEGAL TECH. AND RISK MGMT [Vol. 6 Editor-in-Chief Daniel B. Garrie, Esq. (USA) Guest Editor Kelly Merkel, Esq. (USA) Publications Editor Candice M. Lang, Esq. (USA) Executive Editors Matthew Armstrong, Esq. (USA) Dr. Sylvia Mercado Kierkegaard (Denmark) Scientific Council Stephanie A. “Tess” Blair, Esq. (USA) Hon. Amir Ali Majid (UK) Hon. Maureen Duffy-Lewis (USA) Micah Lemonik (USA) Andres Guadamuz (UK ) Carlos Rohrmann, Esq. (Brazil) Camille Andrews, Esq. (USA) Gary T. Marx (USA) William Burdett (USA) Eric A. Capriloi (France) Donald P. Harris (USA) Hon. Justice Ivor Archie (Trinidad & Tobago) ii Members Janet Coppins (USA) Eleni Kosta (Belgium) Dr. Paolo Balboni (Italy) Salvatore Scibetta, Esq. (USA) Ygal Saadoun (France/Egypt) Steve Williams, Esq. (USA) Rebecca Wong (United Kingdom) iii IV J. OF LEGAL TECH. AND RISK MGMT [Vol. 6 FOREWORD In this edition, we explore seemingly disparate realms of regulation and legislation and discover shared nuances in growing concern for current legal framework in all facets of legal practice and scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Bayh-Dole of United States for Purposes of This Chapter by Execu- Act
    § 187 TITLE 35—PATENTS Page 88 tion is amended by striking ‘‘of this title’’ each CHAPTER 18—PATENT RIGHTS IN INVEN- place that term appears. See 2011 Amendment TIONS MADE WITH FEDERAL ASSISTANCE note below. Sec. HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES 200. Policy and objective. Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., § 156 (Feb. 1, 1952, 201. Definitions. ch. 4, § 6, 66 Stat. 5, 6). 202. Disposition of rights. Language is changed. 203. March-in rights. 204. Preference for United States industry. AMENDMENTS 205. Confidentiality. 2011—Pub. L. 112–29 struck out ‘‘of this title’’ after 206. Uniform clauses and regulations. ‘‘181’’ and after ‘‘184’’. 207. Domestic and foreign protection of federally 1988—Pub. L. 100–418, which directed the insertion of owned inventions. ‘‘willfully’’ after second reference to ‘‘whoever’’, was 208. Regulations governing Federal licensing. executed by making the insertion after ‘‘or whoever’’, 209. Licensing federally owned inventions. as the probable intent of Congress. 210. Precedence of chapter. 211. Relationship to antitrust laws. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2011 AMENDMENT 212. Disposition of rights in educational awards. Amendment by Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expi- AMENDMENTS ration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after 2000—Pub. L. 106–404, § 4(b), Nov. 1, 2000, 114 Stat. 1744, that effective date, see section 20(l) of Pub. L. 112–29, substituted ‘‘Licensing federally owned inventions’’ for set out as a note under section 2 of this title. ‘‘Restrictions on licensing of federally owned inven- tions’’ in item 209.
    [Show full text]
  • 2200 Citation of Prior Art and Reexamination of Patents
    Chapter 2200 Citation of Prior Art and Reexamination of Patents Citation of Prior Art and Reexamination of Patents 2247 Decision on Request for Reexamination, 2201 Introduction Request Denied 2202 Citation of Prior Art 2247.01 Examples of Decisions on Request for 2203 Persons Who May Cite Prior Art Reexamination 2204 Time for Filing Prior Art Citation 2248 Petition From Denial of Request 2205 Content of Prior Art Citation 2249 Patent Owner's Statement 2206 Handling of Prior Art Citation 2250 Amendment by Patent Owner 2207 Entry of Court Decision in Patent File 2250.01 Correction of Patent Drawings 2208 Service of Citation on Patent Owner 2251 Reply by Requester 2252 Consideration of Statement and Reply 2209 Reexamination 2253 Consideration by Examiner 2210 Request for Reexamination 2254 Conduct of Reexamination Proceedings 2211 Time for Requesting Examinations 2255 Who Reexamines 2212 Persons Who May File a Request 2256 Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications 2213 Representative of Requester Considered by Examiner in Reexamination 2214 Content of Request 2257 Listing of Prior Art 2215 Fee for Requesting Reexamination 2258 Scope of Reexamination 2216 Substantial New Question of Patentability 2259 Collateral Estoppel In Reexamination 2217 Statement in the Request Applying Prior Art Proceedings 2218 Copies of Prior Art 2260 Office Actions 2219 Copy of Printed Patent 2260.01 Dependent Claims 2220 Certificate of Service 2261 Special Status For Action 2221 Amendments Included in Request by 2262 Form and Content of Office Action Patent Owner
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming Patent Reexamination Procedure for the Small Business and Small Inventor
    COMMENT CREATING A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE: REFORMING PATENT REEXAMINATION PROCEDURE FOR THE SMALL BUSINESS AND SMALL INVENTOR WILLIAM BARROW* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...............................................................................................630 I. Background on Reexamination.......................................................632 A. Ex Parte Reexamination ..........................................................633 B. Inter Partes Reexamination......................................................634 C. Director-Ordered Reexamination............................................635 D. Reexamination’s Amendment Process ....................................636 II. The Shortfalls of Reexamination ....................................................636 A. Ineffectiveness of Ex Parte and Inter Partes Reexamination.....637 B. Restrained Use of Director-Ordered Reexamination...............638 C. Loopholes in the Amendment Process ....................................639 III. Reforming Reexamination..............................................................640 A. Administrative Estoppel via Post-Reexamination Procedure....642 B. Expanded Use of Director-Ordered Reexamination................643 Conclusion ................................................................................................645 * J.D. Candidate, May 2008, American University Washington College of Law; B.S. Electrical Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, 2004. I would like to thank Professor Joshua Sarnoff and Professor Robert Kasunic for their
    [Show full text]
  • PATENT MISUSE THROUGH the CAPTURE of INDUSTRY STANDARDS by Janice M
    PATENT MISUSE THROUGH THE CAPTURE OF INDUSTRY STANDARDS By Janice M. Muelle ABSTRACT The existence of a patent on a particular technology conveys the statu- tory right to exclude, but in no way guarantees economic power in the marketplace. When a patented technology is adopted as an industry stan- dard, however, that equation can change radically. Because of competitive necessity to practice the patented standard, particularly in industries char- acterized by network effects, the power potentially conveyed by the patent is greatly amplified. Industry standards are subject to "capture" when firms that participate in formulating a standard have also obtained (or are seeking) patent or other proprietary rights in some aspect of the technical subject matter of the standard, without disclosing the existence of those rights to the standard-setting organization. Conflicts arise when a license under these patents is essential to practicing a standard and the patent owner refuses to license certain competitors, or grants licenses only at terms perceived by users as commercially unreasonable. Absent a mecha- nism to compel licensing, a hold-up problem ensues. This Article contends that patents are not fundamentally incompatible with industry standards, but that the existence of patents on standards must be transparent and the licensing of such patents subject to appropriate con- trols so as to ensure widespread industry access. In order to make fully informed choices about technology under consideration for adoption as an industry standard, standards-setting organizations must be made aware of any relevant patent rights or pending patent applications owned by stan- dards-setting participants. In cases of "abusive" standards capture, defined as the intentional or willful nondisclosure of patent rights by a standards- setting participant who thereafter refuses to license all users at reasonable © 2002 Janice M.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Reexaminationâ•Žs Problem: the Power to Amend
    PATENT REEXAMINATION'S PROBLEM: THE POWER TO AMEND MICHAEL J. MAURIEL INTRODUCTION The federal judiciary's exclusive reign over questions of patent validity ended in 1980 when Congress created the process of pat- ent reexamination.' Patent reexamination is conducted by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) after a "substantial new question of patentability" regarding an existing patent has been raised.' This "question" may be raised by any person outside the PTO, including the patent's owner, or by the PTO itself.' Reex- amination allows the PTO to determine the validity of existing patents; the PTO may, through this process, confirm the validity of or cancel individual patent claims.4 Reexamination also grants the PTO, at the patentee's request, the power to amend individual patent claims.' Congress intended reexamination to "permit efficient resolu- tion of questions about the validity of issued patents without re- course to expensive and lengthy [validity] litigation."6 Congress's 1. See Act of Dec. 12, 1980, 35 U.S.C. §§ 301-307 (1994). 2. 35 U.S.C. § 303(a). 3. Id.§§ 302-303. 4. A patent "claim" is a written statement that "point[s] out what the invention is in such a way as to distinguish it from what was previously known, i.e., the prior art ...." ROBERT L. HARMON, PATENTS AND THE FEDERAL CIRcurr 7 (3d ed. 1994). A patent is made up of one or more claims. 35 U.S.C. § 112 (1994). For ease of com- munication, one often speaks of a patent's validity, yet the question of a patent's validity is really a question of the validity of a patent's individual claims.
    [Show full text]
  • Interplay of Markman Hearing Claim Construction and PTO Claim Construction During Reexamination and Concurrent Litigation
    THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW 6TH ANNUAL ADVANCED PATENT LAW INSTITUTE Interplay of Markman Hearing Claim Construction and PTO Claim Construction During Reexamination And Concurrent Litigation January 20 – 21, 2011 Alexandria, Virginia Kenneth R. Adamo* JONES DAY North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1116 (216) 586-7120 2727 N. Harwood Street Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 969-4856 E-mail: kradamo @ jonesday.com * Member Illinois, New York, Ohio and Texas Bars. This paper reflects only the present considerations and views of the authors, which should not be attributed to Jones Day, or to any of their or its clients (former, present or future). © 2011 Kenneth R. Adamo. All Rights Reserved. INTRODUCTION When concurrent, parallel-in-time reexamination proceedings and patent infringement litigation is ongoing, the effects of claim construction occurring during the reexamination proceeding on the litigation, and a Markman/Phillips ruling/decision in the litigation on the reexamination proceeding, may require consideration. A claim construction in the reexamination proceeding in the PTO is part of the prosecution history; as such, it is intrinsic evidence which Phillips requires be considered by the trial court during the Markman/Phillips construction process, irrespective of the other differences between patent reexamination and the litigation process (burdens of proof and the like). Timing issues might, however, present challenges to efficient consideration in a particular case. A trial court claim construction through Markman as applied per Phillips is not binding in the reexamination proceeding. In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Lack of “binding” effect, however, does not end the inquiry, nor demarcate what consideration the PTO may/should give that Markman/Phillips ruling/decision in the reexamination proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • Extending Issue Preclusion to Claim Construction During Reexamination of Previously Litigated Patents
    Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Volume 44 Number 2 Winter 2011 - Symposium: Rebooting California: Initiatives, Conventions & Article 14 Government Reform 1-1-2011 Preventing Inequity: Extending Issue Preclusion to Claim Construction During Reexamination of Previously Litigated Patents Lauren Drake Loyola Law School Los Angeles, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Lauren Drake, Preventing Inequity: Extending Issue Preclusion to Claim Construction During Reexamination of Previously Litigated Patents, 44 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 749 (2011). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol44/iss2/14 This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PREVENTING INEQUITY: EXTENDING ISSUE PRECLUSION TO CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DURING REEXAMINATION OF PREVIOUSLY LITIGATED PATENTS Lauren Drake* This Note explores the uncertainty and inequity created through the dichotomy approach to claim interpretation in the context of reexamination of previously litigated patents. To address this uncertainty and inequity, this Note argues that the claim interpretation determined in a Markman hearing should be binding on the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) during reexamination of a previously litigated patent as a form of issue preclusion. To accomplish this result, this Note proposes three changes to current patent practice: first, the definition of “party” must be expanded to include the PTO; second, the PTO must abandon the broadest reasonable interpretation standard of claim interpretation when reexamining previously litigated patents; and third, Article III courts must deny motions to stay for the purpose of reexaminations.
    [Show full text]
  • Double Jeopardy: Patents of Invention As Contracts, Invention Disclosure As Consideration, and Where Oil States Went Wrong
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 30 XXX Number 3 Article 1 2020 Double Jeopardy: Patents of Invention as Contracts, Invention Disclosure as Consideration, and Where Oil States Went Wrong N. Scott Pierce Foley Hoag LLP, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation N. Scott Pierce, Double Jeopardy: Patents of Invention as Contracts, Invention Disclosure as Consideration, and Where Oil States Went Wrong, 30 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 645 (2020). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol30/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Double Jeopardy: Patents of Invention as Contracts, Invention Disclosure as Consideration, and Where Oil States Went Wrong Cover Page Footnote Partner at Foley Hoag LLP in Boston, MA. The author is solely responsible for the views of this Article, which do not necessarily represent those of his Firm, or any client or organization. This article is available in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol30/iss3/1 Double Jeopardy: Patents of Invention as Contracts, Invention Disclosure as Consideration, and Where Oil States Went Wrong N. Scott Pierce* Patents in England were once favors granted by the King with the requirement that the subject matter be practiced, or worked, for the benefit of the public.
    [Show full text]